Arizona court finds pot compound not subject to DUI law

Court ruled presence of non-impairing marijuana compounds detected in a person's body does not give authorities right to prosecute under Arizona's driving under the influence laws.

KNXV

Leaf of a marijuana plant under a grow light at an international lab.

Getty Images

Copyright 2014 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

PHOENIX - The state Supreme Court has ruled that the presence of non-impairing marijuana compounds detected in a person's body does not give authorities the right to prosecute under Arizona's driving under the influence laws.

Last year, the state Court of Appeals upheld the right of authorities to prosecute pot smokers for DUI even when there is no evidence of impairment.

The Supreme Court opinion released Tuesday notes that while Arizona statute makes it illegal for a driver to be impaired by marijuana use, the presence of a non-psychoactive compound does not constitute impairment under the law.

The opinion focuses on two chemical compounds in marijuana that show up in blood and urine tests -- one that causes impairment and one that stays in the consumer's systems for weeks but doesn't cause impairment.

It means medical marijuana users can get behind the wheel of a car and not worry about being charged with a DUI as long as they're not impaired.

This applies even if some marijuana still shows up in their system if they're pulled over.

Former college basketball player Alex Schmidt is now a medical marijuana card holder.

He suffers from arthritis due to injuries on the court.

“I'm not per se a stoner. I more just use it to deal with pain and go about my daily life not thinking about it,” Schmidt said.

The ASU student uses medical marijuana every day. He takes the light rail to get to class.

“I can usually just feel if it would be too detrimental for me to drive right,” he said.

The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling could put medical marijuana users like him at ease.

“You shouldn't be convicted of driving under the influence when you have something in your body that cannot cause impairment. It just doesn't make sense,” said attorney Michael Alarid, III of the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor.